The municipal group of the Popular Party in Madrid assumes its failure as an accusation in the failed Tennis Open case and focuses its fight on not having to pay the costs of the defenses for acting in bad faith and recklessness in the process they promoted against two councilors of the government of Manuela Carmena. As elDiario.es has learned, the group led by José Luis Martínez-Almeida has appealed the sentence that acquitted Carlos Sánchez-Mato and Celia Mayer, but not to insist that they could have committed a crime: it does so to avoid having to pay the expenses of their lawyers after the judges understood that they exercised the accusation with recklessness and bad faith.
The courts dismantle the judicial offensive of Aguirre and Almeida against the government of Carmena
Know more
The complaint about this Open Tennis case was filed by José Luis Martínez-Almeida himself in May 2017 on behalf of the group that he then led from the opposition. He then accused both mayors and Ana Varela, director of Madrid Destino, of various crimes for allegedly using municipal resources to seek political ammunition and non-existent illegalities around the organization of the Tennis Open in the capital.
After five years of judicial process, the Provincial Court of Madrid signed the acquittal of the three last May with a sentence that buried this judicial initiative of Almeida, another failure of the judicial offensive that he led against the municipal government of Now Madrid after picking up the baton from Esperanza Aguirre. That sentence not only understood that neither Mayer nor Sánchez-Mato nor Varela had committed any crime: it understood that the PP had forced its accusation with “recklessness” and “bad faith” and condemned the mayor’s party to pay the costs of the lawyers of the three defendants.
The ruling of the Madrid Court accused the PP of acting in bad faith and recklessness on several points. For example, when he said that he “without a doubt acted recklessly and in bad faith in keeping the charge in this case against Celia Mayer” for things that happened while she was on maternity leave. He also pointed to the “lack of consistency” in his accusation of prevarication and that the PP insisted on applying the aggravated version of the crime of embezzlement when “it is evident” that the amount of the litigation did not reach the legal minimum.
The ‘popular’ group led by José Luis Martínez-Almeida has accepted its defeat and has given up appealing the merits of the matter and bringing the accusation against Mayer and Sánchez-Mato before the Superior Court of Justice of the capital, but it has appealed its ordered costs. A 13-page letter, to which elDiario.es has had access, in which he insists that there were indications to judge the two mayors and defends that he did not act recklessly despite what was said in the sentence of the Madrid Court.
“There are signs of criminality”
The letter of the PP group in the consistory defends that its accusation took the case to trial, but after the investigating court prosecuted both councilors and the Provincial Court of Madrid endorsed the need to judge the case instead of filing it . Those two resolutions, says the PP, made it clear that “there are indications of criminality” and that everything should be “debugged in oral proceedings to weigh whether it was worthy of criminal reproach, or on the contrary, as has happened, the sentence should be issued. absolution of the same”.
The PP appeal again explores the cause and the evidence and reiterates, despite the acquittal and the arguments of the Madrid Court, that at the time the suspicions were sufficient to bring the Tennis Open case to justice. “In no way is there procedural recklessness on the part of this particular accusation, since the complaint filed deduces claims with foundation, not being, in any way, arbitrary claims and exempt from any reason,” says his appeal.
The party of the mayor of Madrid insists that the three acquitted launched investigation processes into the Tennis Open “despite the evident legality” of the tournament and that they did so to “build an empty and artificial complaint – which had no path judicial, – against the previous managers of the City Council whose sole purpose was to achieve “certain advantage” in the political contest based on the more than well-known discrediting of the rival.
A claim, based on the “obvious legality” of the contracting process for that sports tournament, which collides with what the Court of Madrid says about the actions of the councilors of Now Madrid. The proven facts, which the PP does not question after five years promoting the accusation, ensures that the three defendants acted “with the sole purpose of protecting public interests” and after detecting “well-founded and reasonable doubts” about the Tennis Open , although later they were dismissed by a judge.
“There is not even the slightest indication of recklessness or bad faith for this procedural representation”, settles the PP trusting that the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid withdraws its sentence in costs to pay the lawyers of the three defendants.
He also reasons that accusing Mayer of things that happened while she was on pregnancy leave is not an indication of recklessness or bad faith. She signed the complaint before the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and, therefore, “was fully aware and aware of the facts.” She was on leave between October 2016 and February 2017 but that, says the PP now, “does not make it impossible for her, in any way, to be part of such decisions” since she was the councilor for culture and sports.
www.eldiario.es